Kid, the next time I say, "Let's go someplace like Bolivia," let's GO someplace like Bolivia.

Main menu

Movies That Everyone Should See: “Psycho”

The year is 1960. It’s an election year. Kennedy narrowly defeats Nixon. The civil rights movement is underway. Elvis returns from Army Duty. He would chart a major number one song that year with “Are You Lonesome To-night?” Meanwhile, “The Beatles” are still playing in Germany. It is the first appearance of a U.S. flag with 50 stars, Hawaii having achieved statehood in the previous year. The Flintstones and the Andy Griffith show make their first appearances. “Gunsmoke”, “Father Knows Best” and “Dennis the Menace” are all top 20 tv shows. “Leave it to Beaver” is in the middle of its six-year run. The highest grossing movie of that year? Disney’s “Swiss Family Robinson”.

Into this Americana mix, Alfred Hitchcock released Psycho. A tale about Norman Bates.

To call his character shocking would be an understatement. But he fit right in with the movie.

To start with, Hitchcock had cast Janet Leigh, an enormous star at the time, as his lead. He begins the movie with her (getting dressed after having an affair, also shocking by the days standards), convinces the audience that the film revolves around her embezzling from her employer, then has her suddenly and brutally killed halfway through the movie. It’s not just a shock, it’s a perspective change! The movie had been following this character, it was HER movie. Now it’s not, she’s gone. The twist ending was so surprising it was the measuring stick for twist endings for 40 years (That’s the Sixth Sense’s title now I believe). And when you add up all of the elements, you get a movie that’s pretty demented when you think about it.

I mean, just to hammer home one last time how shocking this movie was by the standards of the day, read these two sentences from Psycho’s Wikipedia page.

“Another cause of concern for the censors was that Marion was shown flushing a toilet, with its contents (torn-up note paper) fully visible. Up until that time in mainstream film and television in the U.S., a toilet flushing was never heard, let alone seen.”

It was a day and age where people were worried about showing audiences a toilet.

In the middle of this movie, when Hitchcock finally reveals the true nature and bent of the film, he does it with one of the single most legendary scenes of all time. “The shower scene”. In it, he shows the audience a full-fledged stabbing.

The scene features 50 cuts. They used chocolate syrup instead of blood. They got the sound by stabbing a melon. You never actually see the knife stab pierce flesh. The legendary, shrieking music was made by string musicians bowing as fiercely as they could, as if they were stabbing someone themselves. Hitchcock’s wife, Alma, spotted Leigh blinking after she was supposedly dead, and Hitchcock was able to cut it before the movie opened. Now, these are facts that a lot of film buffs are aware of, this is a scene that has been scrutinized to death. It is WELL documented. But why? How did this scene get to this place where people wanted to analyze every detail of it?

It’s hard to imagine the impact of this scene on its audience. That’s one of the reasons I like to discuss the world as it was at the time, because its important to understanding the film at hand. Can you picture film goers of the time, fresh off of watching freaking “Leave it to Beaver” at home on the tube, then coming out to the theatre and seeing this? A woman stabbed again and again and again? Their shock… resonated through film history. THAT’S why this scene is so infamous.

Unfortunately, to today’s modern audiences, this scene probably loses some of its impact. To this generation of film fans coming up? The ones weaned on “Saw” and “Hostel”? They probably think that Marion Crane got off easy. I don’t think the twist would get by modern audiences, either. We’ve been fooled by movies too many times. A darkened face with a wig on would automatically trigger a rundown of suspects… so why aren’t the showing the killer? Who could it be? Even if people bought in to Norman speaking to his mother, they’d still catch on to the fact that she’s never being shown. Well, what’s wrong with her? Why aren’t they showing her? That could lead to realizing the truth, too.

So, normally, I would discount a movie for that. Here, I’m not. Why? BECAUSE PSYCHO WAS THE SEED FROM WHICH ALL THESE OTHER MOVIES GREW!! This is the jumping off point, I don’t care what movie you can point out released earlier where someone kills someone or there’s a psychopath who does whatever. THIS was the one that started the slasher film sub genre. Now, to what degree we should be thankful for that I don’t know. LOL. But I do know I wouldn’t have been able to watch Jason Vorhees tromp through the woods and slaughter campers by the score in my teens if it hadn’t been for Norman Bates. It’s also influenced innumerable filmmakers, and the “Thriller” genre overall. I’ll bet that no director since this movie’s been released has worked on a film with a twist in it and hasn’t wondered how their film would measure up to the gran-daddy of them all.

And even if the killing’s lost some impact. Even if the “twist” has lost some zip. This is a movie that still holds up to this day, and will probably always hold up.

Why?

Because of Norman Bates.

Yes, good old Norman Bates. You’d trust him wouldn’t you? He seems sweet enough. Wants to bring you dinner and chat. Sure, his taxidermy collection is a little creepy, but everyone needs a hobby? Right? Plus, he’s taking care of his mother all by himself! What a nice guy…

Yeah, right.

Man, it’s hard to describe how sick Norman Bates really was. If this were a true case (and I know it took inspiration from real life cases), Bates would be news across the country. “Serial Killer Kept Dead Mother’s Corpse” I just… how sick is that? I mean obviously he was completely disconnected from reality, but dammmnn! Dressing in her clothes, talking to himself, punishing any women that aroused him by killing them. I mean just… this guy is an A1 nutjob.

And Perkins plays him perfectly. The little stammer when he references his m-m-mother? The sweet but nervous countenance. Reportedly he did such a great job here that he was typecast afterwards for decades. I guess that sort of thing happens. But he certainly turned in the performance of a lifetime. I’ve always wished he had more time to play the “Evil Side” of his personality. They just give him a couple of shots really, although I love the wicked little grin he has on in prison when he’s thinking like his mother in the last shot of the movie? So twisted. Just. Plain. Sick.

This is one of the master’s masterpieces, right here. Some would argue it’s his finest work. It’s certainly one of the most legendary. It’s got iconic imagery that’s still recognizable today, a legendary scene that ranks amongst the most analyzed and dissected ever, and an incredible villain that is considered one of the greatest ever in screen history. The fact that this film is still valuable and resonant 50 years later is a testament to the talent of Hitchcock.

1) Thank you, thank you. I hope you do. I watched it not too long ago when it came out on Blu and it blew me away

2) Good to see you here again. When I say things about wanting to get discussions going, I often think back to our comics debates back in the Halls and on the Matrix. We often didn’t see eye to eye (Lol, to put it mildly, eh?) but we always had GREAT discussions going. Hope to see you here often!

3) AWESOME avatar. I LOVE that movie. It’s only a matter of time before that movie is written up in this series, for sure. And maybe in “Under the Radar” too.

The only Hitchcock film I’ve seen is North by Northwest, which I really enjoyed. I’ll be borrowing my friends Hitchcock box set soon though, so I’ll be able to see Psycho, Vertigo, and Rear Window for sure.

Wow, amazing film. The violence doesn’t really hold up graphically, yet I still thought it had a big impact. And the twist, I sort of guessed, but was still done very well and did actually surprise me.

You know what amazes me is how well his movies still hold up! He has such a huge filmography that I’m always running across movies of his I havent seen yet and watching them now for the first time… and he never fails to impress.

Oh ok. Well… you have to keep in mind that that film was from the late 50s as much as it was the early sixties. A lot of those concepts were entirely NEW to the audiences of that time. You know? They probably needed the help via monologue much more than today’s modern audience would.😉

I have seen this one, knew I liked it, but sadly I cannot recall a lot of it (or, maybe it’s one of those good things, I can enjoy my next watching of it; my health condition can cause memory lags, but it does have benefit to allow me to enjoy good moments in books and movies all over again😉 ).

The only other film of his I have seen is The Birds, which I liked and disliked at the same time….it was an odd sensation (haha). Sorry, cannot recall the whys of those reactions, just recall the feelings. But, I do wish to see some more of his work. After reading yours and Morgan’s posts about Psycho, I got to talking with My Main Man, and we are discussing having a screening of a few of Hitchcock’s movies, and re-watching of this one.

When I watch them, I will look to see if you (and Morgan, how I came to know of your blog) have posts and let you know what I think with them freshly in mind😉